The Priory Hospital Market Weighton

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. The service had made some improvements, but the service was in breach of regulation for good governance at the service. This meant the service management and leadership did not always establish systems and processes or ensure they operated effectively. At this assessment, the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt respected, supported, and valued. All staff were positive about the new hospital director who they felt was supportive, approachable, and proactive.

Staff felt they had opportunities for development and the provider promoted equality and diversity. Staff we spoke with had worked in the service for an average of 6 years, they knew the patients well and were confident the care and treatment they delivered supported the individual’s rehabilitation and recovery.

The service had a mandatory training programme and undertook regular supervision to ensure staff development, increase awareness of best practice and to ensure that staff understood and demonstrated the vision and values of the service.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, and experience to perform their roles. They had a good understanding of the service, and the patients and staff told us they were approachable, supportive, and visible.

Since the last inspection, the service had a new hospital director and recruited to previously vacant posts and new roles to support the patients and the development of the bespoke therapeutic placement beds.

The hospital had a whistleblowing policy and procedure in place to ensure staff were aware of how to effectively raise a concern. Staff had access to a freedom to speak up guardian. The service had their own champion, and staff knew how to make contact. Staff were able to raise concerns through a variety of feedback methods including through an onsite representative for the providers ‘Your Say’ forum. Staff had the opportunity to raise questions or any concerns about employment and this was fed into the regional meeting. Staff we spoke with knew how to raise a concern and felt confident to do so. Staff said there was a positive and open culture, and they could always approach leaders if there was an issue.

Staff we spoke with felt managers were respectful of cultural diversity and managers would support staff through supervision and team meetings in this area. The latest staff survey in April 2025 asked 3 questions in relation to diversity and inclusion. The results showed that 67% of staff were satisfied with Priory's efforts to improve equality, diversity and inclusion and felt comfortable being their true self at work and 76% of staff completing the survey were confident that concerns raised would be taken seriously.

However, we did not see evidence in patient community or staff team meeting minutes in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion. There was a lack of information in the ward environment in relation to Black and minority ethnic groups or the LGBT+ community.

Our findings from other key questions demonstrated that some governance process did not always operate effectively.

Overall, we found the service lacked some oversight and review of the effectiveness of some of the systems, processes, and procedures in place. Some concerns were fed back to the service after the onsite assessment and the provider was responsive to these and informed us they would implement changes to make some immediate improvements.

At the last inspection we had raised concerns that patients, staff, and visitors did not have access to personal alarms in all parts of the hospital. Since the last inspection, the service had introduced radios for staff using the therapy house and personal alarms for people to use if needed. However, feedback from patients, staff and visitors indicated that they were not aware they could have access to a personal alarm. Therefore, we were still not assured of the personal safety of all patients, staff, and visitors. After the onsite assessment, the service amended the daily fire register to ensure that all staff and visitors were aware they could have a personal alarm when entering the premises.

The process for reviewing physical health care needs or documents by the hospital was not always robust and we did not see any evidence of use of side-effect monitoring scales or tools. Following our onsite assessment the service provided us with a document detailing a quality improvement project to introduce well man clinics with a view to enhancing monitoring of physical health on the ward, but this was not in place or embedded during the assessment.

There were planned activities on the ward but patients we spoke with gave mixed feedback regarding this. The advocacy quarterly report submitted in January 2025 also indicated that a patient had complained about the lack of activities on the ward. The service had produced monthly activity data in February and March 2025, which showed the hours of meaningful engagement patients were offered on a weekly basis and it captured what was accepted and declined by patients. The provider told us this data was being used to make amendments to the activity timetable and individual timetables.

The service lacked access to easy read information, activities timetable on the notice board was out of date, activities did not always consider the needs of all patients and partner organisations fed back that communication could be improved.

The service did not always review the effectiveness of the environment or interventions implemented. For example, the service supported people with a diagnosis of autism and learning disabilities but had not undertaken an autism friendly environment checklist. One patient we spoke with told us that nurse call alarms go off a lot and it is very echoey. The service had not considered accessible information standards to effectively communication with individuals who have disabilities. The service had implemented some of the Safewards interventions (a model that helps staff and patients communicate better and reduce conflict on mental health wards) but there was no review of how effective these interventions were.

Staff had good relationships with wider partners including commissioners and other external services. The service was open and transparent to external stakeholders who provided regular reviews and scrutiny to improve outcomes for patients using the service. They had collaborative meetings with these partners enabling good practice and learning lessons.

Processes, such as multi-disciplinary meetings ensured all relevant partners were involved in the patients care. The provider worked actively with local partners internally and externally.

Staff were supported to develop their skills. All staff spoke positively about the training opportunities available to develop their knowledge and skills.

The hospital did not follow a clear rehabilitation model. Hospital managers told us they worked to the AIMS Rehab: Standards for Inpatient Mental Health Rehabilitation Services (4th edition). However, the service could not provide evidence on how they evaluated or met these specific standards. The hospital managers told us they were committed to ensuring they met the needs of people in terms of their rehabilitation and recovery and would create an audit tool. They also told us they were committed to meet the needs of those individuals with an autism diagnosis.